Tired Light

Here is the abstract of Lyndon's paper. Each sentence of this abtract encapsulates errors in basic physics. Lyndon himself is not really capable of recognizing or dealing with the errors. Thus I am not posting this as questions for Lyndon; but simply as a summary of the errors for anyone who might think that this is some kind of credible physical model. There may be one person here other than Lyndon himself who is in that unhappy situation.1. The units error.The first sentence is a simple units error, as has been explained in the thread. The expression: ‘hr_e/m_e per cubic metre of space’ (2.1x10^-18 s^-1) should really say that ‘hr_e/m_e = 2.1x10^-18 s^-1m³’. (Added in edit: Ashmore's use of the word "per" is thus wrong also.) The Hubble constant is about 2.1x10^-18 s^-1. The similar magnitudes mean nothing, because the units are different. If we use CGS units rather than SI units, then hr_e/m_e = 2.1x10^-12 s^-1cm³. And if we use Imperial units, then hr_e/m_e = 7.4x10^-17 s^-1ft³. Lyndon on his web site indicates that he teaches physics at a secondary college. It would be a good exercise for high school students to explain why a close similarity of values for H₀ and hr_e/m_e is meaningless.Later in the abstract there is an equation with correct units. We'll get to that. Added in edit. Eta pointed out an error in my own work, in Message 138. Thanks! In SI Units, h is kg m² s^-1, r_e is m and m_e is kg. Thus hr_e/m_e has units m³ s^-1. I originally gave units as m^-3 s^-1, and then scaled everything the wrong way. My excuse is that I used Ashmore's phrase "per cubic meter", which encapsulated the same error! Argh. I have corrected the CGS from 2.1x10^-24 s^-1cm^-3 to 2.1x10^-12 s^-1cm³, and the Imperial from 5.9x10^-20 s^-1ft^-3 to 7.4x10^-17 s^-1ft³.2. The free electrons error.The second sentence of the abstract introduces another fundamental phsysical error in Lyndon's "analysis"; the treatment of electrons in a rarified plasma. The second sentence includes this phrase: "electrons in the plasma of intergalactic space that act collectively and oscillate if displaced." This is false. Lyndon's analysis assumes a very thin plasma indeed; having on order of magnitude one particle every cubic meter or so. Such electrons are free electrons. They don't "oscillate" when displaced. They just fire off in a new direction with no restoring forces that would set up oscillations. It seems likely that Lyndon has mixed up waves within a plasma and motions of electrons in photon interactions.3. Absoption.The third sentence speaks of absoption and emission of photons by electrons. While this is certainly crucial for electrons that are bound to a nucleus, which can absorb photons by moving up an energy level, and emit a photon again as they drop back, I do not believe this is correct for electrons in a plasma. A free electron can only take up energy by a boost in kinetic energy (motion), and the only way this gets emitted again is by effects like bremsstrahlung, or the radiation of energy from an accelerated or decelerated charged particle. But bremsstrahlung is invoked by Ashmore in quite a different context, to slow the electron that has received an energy kick from the original photon. Ashmore has mixed up the physics of bound and free electrons again.4. The double Mssbauer effectThe fourth sentence of the abstract includes this phrase, which is physically gibberish. There is no such thing. The Mssbauer effect applies when you have tightly bound electrons in a large lattice. Ashmore appeals frequently to an old text on Special Relativity by French, which I have borrowed to compare. Within his paper, Ashmore quotes the energy change in emission or absorbtion as Q²/2m_ec²; which is a special case of the the relation given by French for photons recoiling of a particle in a collision,, which is Q²/2M₀c². French explains the Mssbauer as something that occurs when M₀ is extreme large; effectly the mass of the crystalline lattice to which the electron is bound. Ashmore's use of Mssbauer effect with the mass of an electron is physically ludicrous.5. The plasma density, and the electron radiusThe fifth sentence is where there is a term with correct units for a meaningful comparison with the Hubble constant; 2n_ehr_e/m_e. The new variable n_e has dimensions m^-3, and so the whole term now has the right units for comparison with H₀. On the other hand, the resulting value is much too small. Lyndond resolves this in the paper simply by speculating that n_e is significantly larger than existing estimates propose; which is a reasonable proposal in itself since estimates of the density of the inter Galactic medium are not remotely accurate. This does, however, demolish the alleged "Ashmore's paradox", since he only obtains the similarly of values by tuning the variable n_e to get the correspondence.Properly speaking, therefore, the equation H₀ = 2n_ehr_e/m_e is not evidence for Ashmore's model; but a prediction yet to be confirmed by some good independent measure of n_e. The actual interactions proposed by Ashmore are, however, based on a wide range of other trivial errors, and so the whole exercise is just a waste of time.I am also dubious that using the classical electron radius is correct in this context for calculating the scatting cross-section of an electron. But I will defer on this to any physicist willing to comment.6. The CMBThe sixth and final sentence speaks of bremsstrahlung radiation from the accelerated electron. The relevance of this is that Ashmore, in his paper, associates this with the Comic Microwave Background. Since the spectrum bremsstrahlung is not a blackbody spectrum, this is physically ludicrous as well.Conclusion. These points are not given as questions for Ashmore to answer. Going on past experience, I expect him to have some comments that tell me my physics is all wet; while most of the substance simply ignored or "refuted" with more errors. I'm not out to convince Ashmore of anything. I'd be much more worried if he thought my physics was correct than if he thinks it is wrong.I guess I am trying to point out why there is so much of a pile-on effect happening here. Ashmore's physics is trivially wrong, and as you dig into it the errors merely multiply. It can be refuted at any almost any level; there are errors here than even a beginner could pick up, and other errors that require a more sophisticated analysis than I can manage at short notice. So we are bound to get a pile of people jumping in to point out the various errors.Demanding Ashmore respond to various criticisms is a waste of time. As one guy against the whole of modern physics, he can't hope to address all the concerns. And if he was capable of giving a good response, he wouldn't be making these errors in the first place. So calm down everyone. We don't need bad language to be emphatic. We don't need to convince Ashmore (and we clearly can't). So relax, sit back, pick a thread of the tired light model and unravel it a bit for yourself.If you really want to help, try looking for errors made by the people who are being critical of Ashmore. This is how people who are capable of learning can actually learn. For example, I will be very grateful for any credible criticisms of the comments I have made in this post. Hint, hint.Cheers -- SylasThis message has been edited by Sylas, 03-19-2005 09:39 PM

Go back ad read the thread. Long before I got involved Lyndon started being a smart ass with Sylas calling him basically a fool and equating himself to being a genius.The fact is he's a physics dope.

your numbers are wrong. The numerical value in CGS is 2.07 x 10^-12 cm^3/s. You went the wrong way and got 2.07 x 10^-24 cm^3/s. Similarly the foot result is the wrong way.In CGS Plancks constant is 6.626 x 10^-27 erg s.
The classical radius is 2.818 x 10^-13 cm and the mass is 9.109 x 10^-28 grams.

Thanks Eta. I have fixed up my original post, with due acknowledgement of the fix. Any more criticisms will be gratefully received!

there is no problem using the classical radius in scattering theory. In fact you have to.

"Most of" appears to imply that some are not as you say. One would expect for there to be differences in concepts about things billions of lightyears distant and concepts about things which one alleges to have happened billions of years ago concerning a supposed singularity in which a particle of space began expanding to eventually effect all that exists. My problem with some of you people is that you arrogantly act as though you were were right there on the spot as eye witnesses, (gods, if you will) observing exactly how it was and how it is by doing your math and assembling your formulas.I say when you can explain the before the singularity which allegedly caused it, compatible with TD law 1, how there was no area allegedly existing for it to expand into, and when you can allege on the one hand that space consists of nothing, yet allegedly expands and a host of other unknowns like what space's alleged boundary properties are so as to be identified, then maybe you can begin to justify your claim to have an absolute corner on cosmology as to origins and ever so limited present observations of whatever amount of the universe which is within our ability to observe. Yah, and I'm inclined to think that if you, Sylas, were to find yourself alone, debating a board full of Lyndon's ideological fellows, defending your expanding space views, they would come up with some stuff you would be hard pressed to refute, including some stuff which remains a mystery to all by your own admission, stuff like particles which allegedly come and go in and out of existence, about some aspects of black holes, as well as aspects of gravity, et al. Mmm...."one man?".....Mmm......"the whole of modern physics?" Wouldn't "majority of" be a more fit and accurate phrase?What ideology do you expect to be in the majority when 99% of the money and effort are expended on the BB ideology and when every student of secularist schools has that ideology programmed into them from preschool through post graduate? .....And who here in town, besides Ashmore is able and willing to even attempt to articulate the physics in scientific debate so as to be considered by you and yours as credible? Given the reception Lyndon has received here in his first thread, do you expect anyone to care to sign in and give their argument a shot?

---

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw

Before I edit my post to fix this, I just want to confirm. What is the Thomson cross section? If I take a cross section using the classical radius, I get 3/8 of the Thomson cross section. I think.

My point was that there is no other 'radius' to use. The electron technically is a point particle. The 'classical' radius is just a construct with dimensions of length using e, m & c. It doesn't correspond to a true physical size of an electron.The 3/8 factor just comes from the formula for a classical radiating dipole and the definition of the Poynting vector.This gives that the Thomson cross section is 8*Pi/3 * Re^2.

Not as far as I can tell. There are people who propose tired light models that are a bit less ridiculous, but Ashmore seems to be quite the loner. I have not looked into it carefully, but there may one other usenet crank who has a similar set of errors. They don't seem to refer to each other. Lyndon's argument is wrong; and some of the errors are really really trivial.You don't seem to be even willing to entertain the possibility that there might be a real difference in expertise and validity in the maths and physics involved. You seem determined to elevate all criticism up to the same status. But as your own physics is so dreadful, you can't actually tell the difference between an interesting and unusual hypothesis, and a lot of errors.From your personal perspective, knowing effectively nothing about physics, you might think of this as a maverick scientist who is not getting a hearing. But Lyndon is not actually a scientist, or a researcher, or even a theorist except in his own mind. He is an enthusiastic amateur who IS getting a hearing, and a lot of useful feedback on his ideas, but he is incapable of even recognizing errors as they are pointed out.Have a look how quickly and efficiently Eta and I can resolve differences. It is not because we are in some kind of collusion. It is because we both know some physics. (I know a bit; and Eta knows a hell of a lot.) You keep saying silly things like "ideology", but that is just not true. There is considerable interest in realistic alterative cosmological ideas, and new ideas get tossed into the ring all the time by scientists. Modern cosmology is a ferment of competing ideas; it is one of the really active and exciting areas of science at present. Ashmore, however, is not part of this; his ideas are just wrong.You'll just have to get used to the hard fact of life that if a paper is written with a lot of errors, and put up for discussion, people will point out the errors. What else would you have us do?Cheers -- Sylas

The above quote exactly sums up the entire problem in these discussions and the whole Creationism/Evolution debate in general. There is no democracy of ideas here. Not all sides have equal merit. This isn't a discussion about whether vanilla icecream better than strawberry icecream. Some things are just right and others, like Ashmores model, are just wrong, period! Again, spot on. Just because the internet has been the utopia for cranks doesn't lend them any more weight than when they were stuck in their garages inventing perpetual motion machines or squaring the circle. Perpetual motion machines still don't exist and Pi is still an irrational number.

If you dig into Ashmore's preprint paper, you find the following at the start of section 4. Now this all looks like nonsense to me. I think he is using the wrong formulae for interactions with free electrons such as are found in thin plasmas. Thomson scattering in a thin plasma makes sense (though of course it will not have the effects required to match cosmological redshift), but that uses a different cross section formula.The sentence in my longer review does not go into this. I said simply: I’m still not sure if I really need to reword that. Is it even worth adding?Cheers -- Sylas

in producing a thermal spectrum with a characeristic 2.73K temp anyway.The fact that the IG plasma is so rarefied means he has no way of producing the necessary equilibrium for a blackbody to form. He needs the electrons and ions of the plasma to be in a Maxwell distribution and that requires an equipartition of energy brought about by collisions. How the hell are particles with such large mean free paths supposed to come into a MB distribution inside of a Hubble time????I could literally go on for pages on the problems with his material and the observational consequences he hasn't a clue about.As a side note, this highlights one of the biggest problems with armchair "scientists". Even if they get the basic physicss correct (admittedly a big IF) they do not have the ability to step back and see the big picture and the ramifications of their ideas in other areas.The problem is, physics and the requisite math are not second nature which allows you with that expertise the ability to truly think about the issues. Instead they have to invest so much intellectual capital getting the physics correct they have no impetus/energy left to actually carry through the analysis. Thus they make errors that an expert would know not to make because of seeing the big picture.

Actually, I think it might be. Your claim in Message 95 was: There are indeed all kinds of problems and mismatches with the real world. But if you read the paper, you will see that Lyndon proposes the electrons in the IG medium absorb the energy lost by photons as they get redshifted, and then that the electrons radiate that energy again as the cosmic background.Cheers -- Sylas

Since Sylas has gained a little humility (though there is still some way to go), I will address him directly — point by point.
1 The units error.
Thanks to Eta_Corinae this has now been pointed out to Sylas that the error is his and not mine. Sylas has corrected his post, there is now no need to reply to it and I accept his apology.2 The free electron error
Here Sylas says:

quote:

---

The second sentence includes this phrase: "electrons in the plasma of intergalactic space that act collectively and oscillate if displaced." This is false. Lyndon's analysis assumes a very thin plasma indeed; having on order of magnitude one particle every cubic meter or so. Such electrons are free electrons. They don't "oscillate" when displaced. They just fire off in a new direction with no restoring forces that would set up oscillations. It seems likely that Lyndon has mixed up waves within a plasma and motions of electrons in photon interactions.

---

Here Sylas is yet again in error. Plasma oscillates because the individual electrons oscillate. We know that the plasma frequencyin IG space is less than 30Hz. Since our photons will always have a frequency higher than this value then the photons are absorbed and always re-emitted. Resonance does not occur.3. Absorption
Here Sylas resorts to his beliefs and gives no scientific explanation at all! On the other hand I treat IG space exactly as it is — a transparent medium containing electrons that can oscillate and recoil. In plasma physics we take these electrons and positive ions and divide them up into virtual atoms and these electrons in these virtual atoms can oscillate. Hence my theory is correct. It is not Compton — who ever heard of the transmission of light through glass as being Compton effect?4. The double mossbauer effect
Here Sylas is either delirious or trying to trick us all by giving false information. The formula I use is calculated by French for the energy lost by an atom when it either absorbs or emits a photon of light — as per my theory. It is easy enough to prove from first principles if needed. I cite the book so as not to waste readers time with proofs that are well known. I ask Sylas to go back and read it again and then apologise to browsers who he has tried to deceive.5. The Plasma density and the electron radius.
The plasma density lies between 0.1 and 10 electrons per metre cubed. In my paper, I use 0.1 since it is the latest value. However, if one cares to look at the reference in point 2 one can see that they quote the electron density as 10. This gives a value for H too high. To get the accepted value for H = 72 km/s per Mpc one needs a value for n of 0.6 per m^3. Estimates of n lie between 0.1 and 10. My theory is fine within the uncertainties involved. Sylas also casts doubt on the use of ‘clasical electron radius. Since the collision cross-section I use is based on research by Lawrence Berkeley
National Laboratory, University of California, Berkely, (who kindly sent me my own personal copy of their data book) then he is casting doubt on very respected scientists. I trust that you will be apologising to them also Sylas.6. The CMB
In my theory, the energy transferred to the recoiling electron is emitted as a secondary photon which I show to be in the microwave region. Sylas calls the CMB the COMIC Microwave Background Whether it is a typo or not it sums the whole thing up. If there is a Perfect Black Body radiation as Sylas suggests then the BB must be wrong. I posted the ‘Horizon problem’ earlier but this has largely been swept under the carpet because posters here do not want to acknowledge that the BB cannot explain it.In conclusion, Sylas has rejected my theory on the grounds of his calculation errors (now corrected), his personal beliefs rather than science, cast aspersions on a well respected lab, Posted wrong information from a book to support his claims, and ignored problems with the BB and CMB.I ask Sylas direct (and anyone else who would like to chip in) to answer, without the usual insults and misplaced arrogance, the following:1) Explain the horizon problem (or admit that a thermalised CMB cannot be explained by the BB) — How can the CMB be in thermal equilibrium as he says when the distance from edge to edge of the universe is 28 billion light year , the universe is only 14 billion years old and radiation travels at the speed of light?2) Why are supernovae alleged to exhibit time dilation when Quasars don’t?3) It is an experimental fact that photons of light have a longer wavelength on arrival than when they set off. Therefore the photons have a lower frequency and hence less energy on arrival than when they set off.
In my theory I say that this energy loss has gone to creating the CMB.
How does the BB explain where this energy has gone? That is, in the BB theory where and how do the photons lose the energy that we know them to lose?You can learn a lot of physics here Sylas if you listen to what people are saying. New theories are not obvious — if they were someone would have come up with the idea before.
Cheers
Lyndon

---

Lyndon Ashmore - bringing cosmology back down to Earth!

The error is completely yours because you don't understand physics or how to handle units.All Sylas did was make a calculator boo boo. He was correct in
principle that you cannot treat units properly. You are at it again. I provided the correct numbers and why you are making high school level physics mistakes.Lyndon, not beating around the bush but I have far more experience and physics knowledge than you. Your insistence of this (false) paradox is basically evidence of true delusion on your part.You call, in your abstract, a m^3 as a unit volume of space. CRAP!!! It's no more valid a unit volume than a foot^3 which then gives a different number. I other words your supposition depends upon the unit choice and that is bullshit physicss!IThis message has been edited by Eta_Carinae, 03-20-2005 04:21 AM